It's reported that Apple stated in an ITC filing that Samsung should not get any royalty whatsoever for it's FRAND-pledged patent that Apple is deemed to infringe.
"...in a recent brief to the Commission, Apple publicly declared that “Apple should not have to pay any royalty at all” for a license including the ’348 patent. Apple’s Submission in Response to the Commission’s Request for Additional Written Submissions on Remedy and the Public Interest at 49 (April 3, 2013). "
If that's accurate it's no wonder an injunction was ordered since it essentially makes Apple an unwilling licensee. I have no idea why Apple would take that position.
If that's accurate it's no wonder an injunction was ordered since it essentially makes Apple an unwilling licensee. I have no idea why Apple would take that position.
It was Apple's last sentence in this submission quoted below, where they claimed the patent was submitted as FRAND too late:
"Of course, for all the reasons found by the ALJ and discussed in Apple’s earlier briefing—e.g., the technical problems with Samsung’s allegations; [section blacked out ]; and the standards misconduct (both as to FRAND and untimely disclosure) that renders Samsung’s patents unenforceable — Apple should not have to pay any royalty at all."
Which is an odd claim, since if it's not FRAND, Samsung could ask anything they wanted. Anyway, Samsung seized upon it to demonstrate that Apple had no intention of negotiating. However, the ITC didn't seem to decide based on that statement alone.
Reading the most recent appeals, apparently Samsung kept making lower license offers, whereas Apple gave one counteroffer and stopped, saying that's all they would pay. That's what prompted the ITC to say that:
1) Apple had no right to make a unilateral decision of the worth of any FRAND patent, and
2) Apple had clearly stopped trying to negotiate, without even trying to use ETSI arbitration. In other words, Apple tried to use ETSI FRAND submission policy to claim they didn't have to pay Samsung, but Apple wasn't obeying ETSI policy themselves.
So I still say, forget the injunction, since that doesn't resolve anything. Just force a deal between the two of them and be done.
Comments
Well in that case it's naked time......
It's reported that Apple stated in an ITC filing that Samsung should not get any royalty whatsoever for it's FRAND-pledged patent that Apple is deemed to infringe.
"...in a recent brief to the Commission, Apple publicly declared that “Apple should not have to pay any royalty at all” for a license including the ’348 patent. Apple’s Submission in Response to the Commission’s Request for Additional Written Submissions on Remedy and the Public Interest at 49 (April 3, 2013). "
If that's accurate it's no wonder an injunction was ordered since it essentially makes Apple an unwilling licensee. I have no idea why Apple would take that position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
If that's accurate it's no wonder an injunction was ordered since it essentially makes Apple an unwilling licensee. I have no idea why Apple would take that position.
It was Apple's last sentence in this submission quoted below, where they claimed the patent was submitted as FRAND too late:
"Of course, for all the reasons found by the ALJ and discussed in Apple’s earlier briefing—e.g., the technical problems with Samsung’s allegations; [section blacked out ]; and the standards misconduct (both as to FRAND and untimely disclosure) that renders Samsung’s patents unenforceable — Apple should not have to pay any royalty at all."
Which is an odd claim, since if it's not FRAND, Samsung could ask anything they wanted. Anyway, Samsung seized upon it to demonstrate that Apple had no intention of negotiating. However, the ITC didn't seem to decide based on that statement alone.
Reading the most recent appeals, apparently Samsung kept making lower license offers, whereas Apple gave one counteroffer and stopped, saying that's all they would pay. That's what prompted the ITC to say that:
1) Apple had no right to make a unilateral decision of the worth of any FRAND patent, and
2) Apple had clearly stopped trying to negotiate, without even trying to use ETSI arbitration. In other words, Apple tried to use ETSI FRAND submission policy to claim they didn't have to pay Samsung, but Apple wasn't obeying ETSI policy themselves.
So I still say, forget the injunction, since that doesn't resolve anything. Just force a deal between the two of them and be done.